Climate Central confuses weather and climate – you help write the rebuttal

Here’s an opportunity for crowd-sourcing a rebuttal to Climate Central’s Top Ten Climate Events of 2010. I think it is mistitled, and should be Climate Central’s Top Ten Weather Events of 2010.

Of course it OK when they do it, because as we all know, weather is not climate except when it fits the AGW narrative, which is CC’s founding mission. The Climate Central effort here with this list seems rather weak and transparent, when you look at the story behind the story for the list they have compiled.

Get a load of this paragraph:

This year also featured plenty of extreme events, from crippling snowstorms in the American Northeast to blazing heat and deadly flooding in Pakistan. Many of these events have already been at least partially linked to natural variations that occur in the Earth’s climate system.

Um, that’s called weather.

Here’s the list with some rebuttals of my own to get started. Readers please add your own in comments, and I’ll add them to this list.


1. Mid-Atlantic Cities Break All-Time Snowfall Records

Last time I checked, it takes two to tango. Cold and weather patterns are a factor also. And, can you tie single weather events to climate?

From Rutgers Global Snow Lab - click

2010 appears to be a strong outlier, and before some folks get all excited about the upwards trend, let’s recall what we’ve learned about endpoints in graphing trends.

 

Readers can help fill in this section with more examples.

2. Flooding in Nashville, Tennessee

Gosh, it floods somewhere in the USA almost every year. For example the Great Ohio River flood of 1937. Was that caused by global warming climate change climate disruption back then too?

 

Louisville, Kentucky during the 1937 flood

3. Record-breaking Heat Waves and Droughts in Africa and the Middle East

Gosh, it gets hot there? We have about 100 years of records, some of that natural variation you allude to can’t be in play in such a short slice of the planetary history? Assume AGW is not a factor; is it not unreasonable to expect new records to be set outside of a 100 year data sample?

Readers can help fill in this section with examples.

4. Russian Heat Wave

Gee, even NOAA doesn’t think this has anything to do with global warming climate change climate disruption:

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.

I guess Climate Central never got that memo.

5. U.S. Summer Heat Waves

2010 had heat waves, so did other years in the USA. When was it again that we had the most frequency of heat waves? Oh, yeah, the 1930′s.

The observed frequency of exceedances of the 5-year recurrence interval of 4-day heat waves across U.S. co-op stations.

And for balance:

 

The observed frequency of exceedances of the 5-year recurrence interval of 4-day cold waves across U.S. co-op stations.

Graph sources: Ken Kunkel of the Illinois State Water Survey, via World Climate Report

 

And yes, I know the graph does not go to 2010, the graphs above were published in 2006, for pre-2000 data, but perhaps readers can locate an update?

6. Pakistan Monsoon and Flooding

Isn’t there a long history of this sort of thing?

From: Khandekar M. K., “2010 Pakistan Floods: Climate Change Or Natural Variability?”
(October 2010), Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (Vol.38, No.5).

As the graph shows, rainfall records for the region prove how floods and droughts have occurred irregularly over a 150-year period and show no discernible significant trend.

Khandekar, also once a research scientist for Environment Canada, and an IPCC reviewer, sums up how Pakistan’s climate record shows no human signal:

“Among other droughts and floods, the monsoon rains were exceptionally heavy in 1917 with extensive floods over many areas of the country, while 1972 was a major drought year resulting in sharply reduced grain yields. The decade of the 1930s experienced in general surplus rains over most of India with three flood years, namely 1933, 1936 and 1938 (Bhalme & Mooley 1980). It is of interest to note that the1930s were part of the dust bowl years on the Canadian/US Prairies. A possible teleconnective link between Indian monsoon flood and Canadian Prairie drought has been speculated by Khandekar (2004).”

His conclusion:

“A rapid transition of the ENSO phase from El Niño to La Niña between spring and summer of 2010 appears to be the key element in triggering a vigorous monsoon of 2010 over the Indian subcontinent…….the 2010 Pakistan floods, although seemingly unprecedented, were well within natural variability of monsoonal climate over the Indian subcontinent.”

7. Third Lowest Arctic Sea Ice Extent

Yes, but here’s what Climate Central won’t show you:

or this:


8. Lake Mead Record Low

Yes, but it has dipped low before, and again, is a 70 year record really enough to claim a long term event outside the bounds of natural variability?

Image: High Country News - click for story

The USGS seems to think that the Pacfic Decadal Oscillation has more to do with it:

 

Time series of average monthly Pacific Decadal Oscillation  and standardized anomaly index of cool+warm-season precipitation

Figure 8. Time series of average monthly Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (upper, smoothed) and standardized anomaly index (SAI) of cool+warm-season precipitation (lower). Arrows indicate regime shifts of the PDO.

The USGS says in Precipitation History of the Mojave Desert Region, 1893–2001:

Precipitation in the desert region is modestly but significantly correlated with the average PDO (computed from October to September) in the year preceding (lag 1) and the year of the cool+warm (lag 0) season (fig. 7). The three regime shifts of the PDO are largely in-phase with the annual and seasonal precipitation time series, particularly since the mid-1940s (fig. 8). The mid-century dry conditions show this in phase relation, which coincides with a period of low indices and a prolonged cool phase of the PDO. The early neutral to positive phase of the PDO is associated, although in a complicated manner, with the relatively wet conditions during the early half of the century. The strong warm phase of the PDO beginning around 1977 is readily associated with the wet climate beginning in 1978. Of particular interest is the downward shift in the PDO beginning in 1999 with concomitant decreased precipitation that has continued through the winter of 2002 with only slight relief in winter 2003. The unusually dry climate in the Mojave Desert region since 1998 is likely associated with a nearly continuous belt of high pressure in the northern mid-latitudes that produced drought conditions elsewhere in the United States, the Mediterranean region, southern Europe, and central Asia. This global-scale drying was evidently related to unusually cool and persistent SST in the eastern Pacific Ocean (Hoerling and Kumar, 2003). The weather, SST, and surface-pressure patterns of the past several years suggest that a transition to another PDO regime is presently underway (Gedalof and Smith, 2001). This transition could affect the climate of the Mojave Desert region.

Well, that’s inconvenient.

9. Amazon Drought

Wide open for readers.

10. Final Annual Temperature Ranking

Um, no, it’s not final yet. Final is the word you use when all the data is in, we still await December. But, it seems there’s been a lot of pressure to make 2010 the “hottest year ever” in advance of the year end.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

117 Responses to Climate Central confuses weather and climate – you help write the rebuttal

  1. How about the drought in Mindanao Island Philippines which caused power outages for several months.

  2. Oh and, what will happen to the weather and climate if the Gulf Stream is stopped and no warm water enters the Atlantic Current?

  3. Bob B says:

    7. Third Lowest Arctic Sea Ice Extent

    We only have about 31 years of arctic sea ice extent measurments. That gives us about a 3 in 10 chance of being in the lowest 3 years. Is this really that significant?

  4. And just what was that chemical the US Government used to sink all the Oil? I mean come on now, I’m not reading about any Tourist problems in the south, nothing in the news, so the SnowBirds have flown and they are not bitching about the beaches? Where did all that all end up? Granted I’m in the Philippines and don’t get much local news from the US Gulf of Mexico, but I am a pretty regular on facebook. I’m not seeing the expected results of that much Oil being released. Where did it go? Don’t you think that might affect a few things?

  5. old44 says:

    As it has been 86 years since this record was set, does this prove Anthropogenic Global Cooling

    Source – Australian Government BOM

    Marble Bar heatwave, 1923-24
    The world record for the longest sequence of days above 100°Fahrenheit (or 37.8° on the Celsius scale) is held by Marble Bar in the inland Pilbara district of Western Australia. The temperature, measured under standard exposure conditions, reached or exceeded the century mark every day from 31 October 1923 to 7 April 1924, a total of 160 days.
    Temperatures above 100°F are common in Marble Bar and indeed throughout a wide area of north western Australia. On average, Marble Bar experiences about 154 such days each year. The town is far enough inland that, during the summer months, the only mechanisms likely to prevent the air from reaching such a temperature involve a southward excursion of humid air associated with the monsoon trough, or heavy cloud, and/or rain, in the immediate area. This may sometimes be associated with a tropical cyclone or a monsoon low. In the record year of 1923-24 the monsoon trough stayed well north, and the season was notable for its lack of cyclone activity. (In fact, the entire Australian continent was untouched by tropical cyclones throughout the season, a rare event in the 20th Century). The rainfall recorded at Marble Bar during the record 160 days was just 79 mm, most of it in two heavy, short-lived storms that developed after the heat of the day. Only a further 12 mm of rain fell before the following December. Severe drought prevailed across the Western Australian tropics, and stock losses were heavy. With no rain to speak of, and minimal cloud, there was nothing to relieve day after day of extreme heat.

  6. davidmhoffer says:

    7. Third Lowest Arctic Sea Ice Extent>>

    Uhm… the mount of sea ice in the arctic at a given point in time is a weather event?

  7. Tim Folkerts says:

    Get a load of this paragraph:

    This year also featured plenty of extreme events, from crippling snowstorms in the American Northeast to blazing heat and deadly flooding in Pakistan. Many of these events have already been at least partially linked to natural variations that occur in the Earth’s climate system. These kinds of climate oscillations, like El Niño, La Niña, and the North Atlantic Oscillation, influence weather patterns around the globe, and in 2010 all three of these were in action.

    Um, that’s called weather.

    Um, are you saying that El Niño, La Niña, and the North Atlantic Oscillation are weather?

  8. Traciatim says:

    Why do you have to rain on their parade? Oh wait . . . that’s weather too. Maybe it can be number 11.

  9. Bob B says:

    1 in 10 chance…

  10. Robert Wille says:

    A “climate event” is something like the onset of an ice-age. There’s no such thing as a climate events for a specific year.

  11. 1DandyTroll says:

    Nuts!

  12. DireWolf says:

    #10 this was the hottest year ever?? Don’t tell the dinosaurs.

  13. Darkinbad the Brightdayler says:

    `I couldn’t afford to learn it.’ said the Mock Turtle with a sigh. `I only took the regular course.’

    `What was that?’ inquired Alice.

    `Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with,’ the Mock Turtle replied; `and then the different branches of Arithmetic– Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision.’

    `I never heard of “Uglification,”‘ Alice ventured to say. `What is it?’

    The Gryphon lifted up both its paws in surprise. `What! Never heard of uglifying!’ it exclaimed. `You know what to beautify is, I suppose?’

    `Yes,’ said Alice doubtfully: `it means–to–make–anything– prettier.’

    `Well, then,’ the Gryphon went on, `if you don’t know what to uglify is, you ARE a simpleton.’

  14. Ulric Lyons says:

    I managed to forecast all the heatwaves this year in my long range weather forecasts, but it would be sad to think I had actually missed a climatic event :-)

  15. TomRude says:

    Of course those are weather events and the sum of those over a 30 y period will become a climatic trend…

  16. Paddy says:

    1. Tim Folkerts: El Nino/La Nina are not climate. So it not weather, what are they?

    2. As For the Climate Central what can one expect from these bandits disguised as scientists that regularly raid the US Treasury? Climate Central is their propaganda arm.

  17. Stephen Rasey says:

    On day one of Cancun Climate Conference Japan says it’s done wity Kyoto goals and will have nothing to do with any successor. That event is certainly Climate, not weather, related.

  18. Baa Humbug says:

    The Big Events ! (19 Dec 99)

    Dozens of scientists from the NOAA contributed to a listing of global storms and climate events, which were notable for their atmospheric marvel and/or impact on human life.

    NOAA’s top global climate events were, in date order:

    Drought, India 1900
    Drought, India 1907
    Drought, China 1907
    Drought,. Sahel, Africa, 1910-14
    Typhoon, China, 1912
    Drought, Soviet Union, 1921-22
    Typhoon, China, 1922
    Drought, China 1928-30
    Flood, Yangtze River, China, 1931
    Drought, China 1936
    Drought,. Sahel, Africa, 1940-44
    Drought, China 1941-42
    Great Smog of London 1952
    Europe storm surge, 1953
    Great Iran flood, 1954
    Typhoon Vera, Japan, 1958
    Drought, India 1965-67
    Cyclone, Bangladesh, 1970
    Drought,. Sahel, Africa, 1970-85
    North Vietnam flood, 1971
    Blizzard, Iran 1972
    El Niño, 1982-83
    Cyclone, Bangladesh, 1991
    Typhoon, Philippines, 1991
    Hurricane Mitch, C. Americ., 1998

    The clear message from this albeit subjective list is that there has been no late `clustering’ of extreme events in recent decades, contrary to what media hysteria would lead us to believe. Also, in spite of the hype, the 1998 El Niño did not make the global list even though the 1982/83 event did

    John L Daly

  19. Martin Brumby says:

    It was very misty in Yorkshire earlier this week.

    Perhaps that was a Global Shock Horror record too?

    Wretched Irritable Climate Syndrome.

    Is there no end to it?

  20. DirkH says:

    Mark and Merejen Borders says:
    December 17, 2010 at 11:15 am
    “Oh and, what will happen to the weather and climate if the Gulf Stream is stopped and no warm water enters the Atlantic Current?”

    I’m in Europe and we’re fine. Mind your own business.

  21. Baa Humbug says:

    Here is the link to NOAAs top global and US national weather events of the 20th C

  22. Actually, with urban heat island effects, we would expect to see more “all time highs” as more cities are built and as cities grow larger. I’m also assuming we take far more measurements than they used to which would give us a greater sample size (and thus more variability) in our measurements.

  23. Baa Humbug says:

    And here is the link to the National Climate Extremes Committee paper (2007 pdf) listing various weather records including such things like worlds heaviest hail stones, strongest tornadoes, most rain in one hour etc Really good Trivial Pursuit type stuff.

    Only a tiny fraction occured in the 2000′s

  24. Gary says:

    Don’t forget about hurricanes… or lack thereof.

    And the Bolivian cold snap.

  25. Gene Zeien says:

    Uhm… the mount of sea ice in the arctic at a given point in time is a weather event?
    El Niño, La Niña, and the North Atlantic Oscillation are weather?

    Yep, and yep. Anything shorter than 30 years is considered “weather”. You need at least a 10-year drought(flood, hot, cold, etc.) to begin seeing a climate “trend”, and a full 30 to nail it.

  26. Enneagram says:

    The latest extreme event (for good or for worse) : CANCUN :-)

  27. Well Baa, your one link was broke, the other about the different statistics was quite interesting. Did you observe a lot of missing information? And did you observe that there was a slight correlation between the winds and waves. Tornadoes and Hurricanes in the US. Many of those on the sheet I remember. I also remember quite a few that should be on the list but are not. I remember one that had the second lowest millibar reading in recorded History, where is that on the list?

  28. Ian W says:

    Sorry but how can an event be climate?

    Climate is the sum of all events over an extended period. Therefore, by definition an event cannot be over an extended period and the phrase “climate event” is an oxymoron.

    However, it is indicative of the level of science that we have come to expect of ‘climate scientists’.

  29. Andrew Marvell says:

    @davidmhoffer

    If the weather was a balmy 30 degrees in the Arctic, there would be no sea ice. If there is any sea ice at all, that’s because the weather is cold.

    So what’s your point?

  30. Engchamp says:

    No.9
    “Amazon rain forests remarkably unaffected by ‘once-in-a-century’ drought of 2005, contrary to previously published report by IPCC”.
    NASA, Science Daily, paraphrased by me, 12 March 2010
    Also, a previous NASA study…
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/amazon_green.html

  31. latitude says:

    Good Lord, there’s another front coming, and it looks like it might rain ahead of the front……………….

    IT’S CLIMATE CHANGE

  32. R. Gates says:

    Their title as it stands is quite correct, as any weather event is certainly part of the climate, the way a small ripple in the ocean is part of a larger wave. Any single storm or heat wave is indeed a climate related event, but as everyone here knows the danger comes in trying to say that any particular event happened or was worsened because of anthropogenic global warming. It is only the FREQUENCY of severe events that could be traced to global warming. Thus, if there were an average of 20 major heat waves somewhere in the world the 10 year period from 1990-2000, and a decade after that it the number jumped to 40, and a decade after that, the number jumped to 60, then you make a case that some factor (i.e. anthropogenic global warming or something else) was causing that shfit.

  33. Jimash says:

    Reaching and screeching while the wheels on the bus start to freeze solid.

    I do get a kick out of this though
    “Mark and Merejen Borders says:
    December 17, 2010 at 11:15 am
    Oh and, what will happen to the weather and climate if the Gulf Stream is stopped and no warm water enters the Atlantic Current?

    I don’t know. Are they planning on stopping it ?
    What will happen if the Sun refuses to perk up in time for the predicted solar maximum ?
    Try that one on for size.

  34. Mark and Merejen Borders says:
    December 17, 2010 at 11:20 am

    And just what was that chemical the US Government used to sink all the Oil? I mean come on now, I’m not reading about any Tourist problems in the south, nothing in the news, so the SnowBirds have flown and they are not bitching about the beaches? Where did all that all end up? Granted I’m in the Philippines and don’t get much local news from the US Gulf of Mexico, but I am a pretty regular on facebook. I’m not seeing the expected results of that much Oil being released. Where did it go? Don’t you think that might affect a few things?

    How many times do I need to ask? We can debate any subject you like but when it gets right down to it; if that Oil and whatever chemical was used as a dispersant, slows or stops the Gulf Stream Warm water from moderating the temperature along the east coast of America and the west coast of the British Isles, we are talking Ice Age; Climate, long term climate. Not the mini-ice age of some years ago caused by a volcanic eruption. Oh but wait, there are quite a few volcanoes erupting right now. What’s up there?

  35. Nuke says:

    Let’s see… Climate is the average of weather over time and if we look at our day-to-day weather records we see many cases of heat, cold, rain, snow, tornadoes, etc that exceed the average and many cases that are way below average.

    And isn’t that how an average is calculated? Only by pretending the day-to-day weather is supposed to be “average” instead of “within the normal range” do we get such nonsense. Just forget the historical record of daily highs, lows, precip, etc and instead focus on a mythical average that is as meaningful as the also mythical average global surface temperature.

    I blame the TV weather guys for this. ;-)

  36. morgo says:

    sydney had it,s coldest spring on record now we have many flood records being broken all over australia . climate or weather ?

  37. Oh and by the way, that one article that I referred to was out in 2007 which means for the last four years we have no data. If it was published in 2007 then it was data from 2006 backwards.

  38. TonyB says:

    Mark and Merejen Borders says:

    “December 17, 2010 at 11:15 am
    “Oh and, what will happen to the weather and climate if the Gulf Stream is stopped and no warm water enters the Atlantic Current?””

    You mean like in 1907 when the gulf stream slowed right down? It was well reported in newspapers of the time so perhaps you should read them and find out

    tonyb

  39. Rick says:

    Doesn’t the Lake Mead level have every bit as much to do with the population growth (and accompanying water demand) in the Southwest? Sure, a drought would bring down the level a bit, but more water demand would keep it there and lower.

  40. MattN says:

    Weather is weather, unless is suits them to call it climate…

  41. Let’s see some data for the last 4 years. Frequency of storms would be a good piece of data, number of storms per year would work to. How about the number, frequency, and strengths of earthquakes. Oh, but lets stay on weather. Yes the US is only one part of the world, so lets here from other parts, about their weather. What is being experienced around the world in peoples memories, don’t depend on reports they can be doctored, what do we remember?

  42. AGWMan says:

    “A “climate event” is something like the onset of an ice-age. There’s no such thing as a climate events for a specific year”.

    I agree with where you are coming from, but not this statement. For example, the impact of a very large meteor.

  43. Let’s take a look at this for a minute:
    Engchamp says:
    December 17, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    No.9
    “Amazon rain forests remarkably unaffected by ‘once-in-a-century’ drought of 2005, contrary to previously published report by IPCC”.
    NASA, Science Daily, paraphrased by me, 12 March 2010
    Also, a previous NASA study…
    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/amazon_green.html

    What about that, the Global Warming Crowd has said that the Amazon is removing a lot of Carbon Dioxide, if there is drought there, the plants growth will be stunted, how fast would that decrease in Carbon Dioxide removal effect the Weather Patterns?

  44. Tim Folkerts says:

    1. Mid-Atlantic Cities Break All-Time Snowfall Records

    What does the graph posted above have to do with anything. The record relates to snowfall in the Mid-Atlantic region. The graph is for Winter snow area over the entire North American continent? Certainly extra snow in the mid-Atlantic will add to the total, but it is a relatively small part of the overall snow coverage.

    The claim made at Climate Central is: “However, the main contributor to last winter’s extreme snowstorms was a natural climate pattern known as the North Atlantic Oscillation, or NAO, which influences winter weather in parts of the northern hemisphere.”

    Anthony’s rhetorical question “And, can you tie single weather events to climate?” seems to be a significant mis-characterization of the claim that the pattern of winter weather is related to the pattern of the NAO.

    I am not a weather expert so I will ask — would the pattern of storms that was observed be consistent with NAO affects?

  45. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Snow in Canada!

  46. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Earthquakes all over the place!

  47. Let me make an observation. In item 1 of the article, if you remove all the outliers and observe the bell curves as per statics calculations, you will see a 3 stage pattern leading up to what will be the bell curve that we are in now, notice we are at the top of that curve, and it could go even higher. Truth is truth, and it’s free!

  48. Biztemp says:

    Regarding Russian heatwaves/forest fires, here’s some historical accounts of similar events going back to the 1400-hundreds:

    1431: following a blotting out of the sky, and pillars of fire, there was a drought – “the earth and the bogs smouldered, there was no clear sky for 6 weeks, nobody saw the sun, fishes, animals and birds died of the smoke.

    1735: Empress Anna wrote to General Ushakov: “Andrei Ivanovich, here in St Petersburg it is so smoky that one cannot open the windows, and all because, just like last year, the forests are burning. We are surprised that no-one has thought about how to stem the fires, which are burning for the second year in a row”.

    1831: Summer was unbearably hot, and as a consequence of numerous fires in the forests, there was a constant haze of smoke in the air, through which the sun appeared a red hot ball; the smell of burning was so strong, that it was difficult to breathe.

    The years of 1839-1841 were known as the “hungry years”. In the spring of 1840, the spring sowings of corn disappeared in many places. From midway through April until the end of August not a drop of rain fell. From the beginning of summer the fields were covered with a dirty grey film of dust. All the plants wilted, dying from the heat and lack of water. It was extraordinarily hot and close, even though the sun, being covered in haze, shone very weakly through the haze of smoke. Here and there in various regions of Russia the forests and peat bogs were burning (the fires had begun already in 1839). there was a reddish haze, partially covering the sun, and there were dark, menacing clouds on the horizon. There was a choking stench of smoke which penetrated everywhere, even into houses where the windows remained closed.

    1868: the weather was murderous. It rained once during the summer. There was a drought. The sun, like a red hot cinder, glowed through the clouds of smoke from the peat bogs. Near Peterhoff the forests and peat workings burnt, and troops dug trenches and flooded the subterranean fire. It was 40 centigrade in the open, and 28 in the shade.

    1868: a prolonged drought in the northern regions was accompanied by devastating fires in various regions. Apart from the cities and villages affected by this catastrophe, the forests, peat workings and dried-up marshes were burning. In St Petersburg region smoke filled the city and its outlying districts for several weeks.

    1875: While in western europe there is continual rain and they complain about the cold summer, here in Russia there is a terrible drought. In southern Russia all the cereal and fruit crops have died, and around St Petersburg the forest fires are such that in the city itself, especially in the evening, there is a thick haze of smoke and a smell of burning. Yesterday, the burning woods and peat bogs threatened the ammunitiion stores of the artillery range and even Okhtensk gunpowder factory.

    1885: (in a letter from Peter Tchaikovsky, composer): I’m writing to you at three oclock in the afternoon in such darkness, you would think it was nine oclock at night. For several days, the horizon has been enveloped in a smoke haze, arising, they say, from fires in the forest and peat bogs. Visibility is diminishing by the day, and I’m starting to fear that we might even die of suffocation.

    1917 (diary of Aleksandr Blok, poet): There is a smell of burning, as it seems, all around the city peat bogs, undergrowth and trees are burning. And no-one can extinguish it. That will be done only by rain and the winter. Yellowish-brown clouds of smoke envelope the villages, wide swaithes of undergrowth are burning, and God sends no rain, and what wheat there is in the fields is burning.

    Seems like a recurring weather pattern.

  49. Barry Day says:

    AS PAUL HOGAN WOULD PUT IT,NO MANN”(flashes out HUGE graph)THIS IS CLIMATE!”

    Right on que,right on time and just what the doctor ordered!!
    Warm periods icecap
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Warm_periods.jpg

    LONGEST THERMOMETER RECORD IN THE WORLD
    http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

    BEST GRAPH AND INFORMATION
    http://www.sustainableoregon.com/temphist.html

  50. Jimash says:

    Here’s one for the list :
    Lowest temperatures ever recorded in Cancun .

    Volcanoes Earthquakes and Asteroid or Meteor strikes are not climate events.
    (Supposing that aside from rapid glaciation , or desertification that there IS such a thing as a climate event )
    They are natural disasters.
    Floods and storms are also natural disasters and have happened throughout history recorded or un-recorded . Really the big difference now is the omnipresence of video cameras .
    I nominate the video camera as the cause of natural disasters.

  51. coaldust says:

    Mark and Merejen Borders says:
    December 17, 2010 at 11:15 am
    Oh and, what will happen to the weather and climate if the Gulf Stream is stopped and no warm water enters the Atlantic Current?

    What would happen in the earth stopped rotating? This is a question similar to yours, and requires no answer, except, at least, a chuckle.

  52. Neil Jones says:

    “Mid-Atlantic Cities Break All-Time Snowfall Records”

    Mid-Atlantic? As in half way between the USA and Europe?

  53. Tim Folkerts says:

    The actual claim states:

    10. Final Annual Temperature Ranking
    The latest numbers from NOAA are in, and January to November 2010 is tied with 2005 for the dubious honor of “The Warmest Year on Record” (records date back to 1880). … The full year is expected to finish up as the hottest on record, or close behind, once the statistics for December are averaged in.

    Anthony says: “Um, no, it’s not final yet. Final is the word you use when all the data is in, we still await December.”
    Um, no one but you said that these were final results. They are just projecting that it will be one of the warmest.

    Anthony says: “But, it seems there’s been a lot of pressure to make 2010 the “hottest year ever” in advance of the year end.”
    Who seems to be applying pressure to whom to make 2010 anything other than what the data indicate?

  54. cark1 says:

    They ought to call themselves Comedy Central.

    /Carl

  55. Eric (skeptic) says:

    It is only the FREQUENCY of severe events that could be traced to global warming.

    This looks like a good thread. Some people here are claiming that the small amount of warming from CO2 causes global increases in severe weather which is otherwise known as cooling or negative feedback. The nice thing is that even if they are wrong, it means that Greenland will melt enough to raise sea levels a few feet which we can easily deal with.

    If they are correct, it means that CO2 warming has negative feedback from weather which means we have to prepare for a higher frequency of extreme weather which we should prepare for anyway (even a lower frequency requires preparation). But no sea level rise or other long term effects.

  56. Tim says:

    A history of drought in Australia – a good read for Tim Flannery

    http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/droughthistory.html

  57. pat says:

    For the warmest year on planet Earth, there sure was a lot of snow in 2010. Almost as much as that famously cold Warmists’ anchor year, the legendary 1979. The difference is in 1979 the snow was caused by cold. In 2010 it is caused by global warming. Darn, this weather stuff is complex.

  58. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Let’s see . . some real climate events last year . . .

    1. No Warmistas died of hypothermia after passing out on a cold Cancun beach after a tequila bender.

    2. Climate realists have been appointed to take over keep leadership roles in the impending Congress

    3. Frozen Orange juice is currently being grown on the trees in Florida

    . . . there must be others :)

  59. Peter Miller says:

    When engineers design a new plant on a greenfields site, they always have to make allowance for a 100, 200, or 500 year weather event.

    Occasional extreme weather occurs all over the world from time to time, to say these extreme weather events is proof of AGW is complete BS.

  60. Ken Roberts says:

    We shouldn’t forget the limitations; here is just a part of te “records disclosure/uncertainties:

    “A related question involves whether climatic
    proxy records can be used to establish an extreme
    weather record. For instance, Crowley (2000)
    concluded that recent reconstructions of Northern
    Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing
    over the past 1000 years indicate the very large
    late-twentieth-century warming is unparalleled
    over the past millennium. Others have disagreed
    (e.g., Knappenberger et al. 2001). Can secular and
    reconstructed climate records, especially those
    devised across disparate data sources, time scales,
    or analytical methodologies, be reconciled with regard
    to establishing climate extremes? And, what
    are specifi c categories for which records of weather
    elements should be kept? Although “most intense”
    or “hottest” are frequent weather characteristics to
    which records are applied, many other categories
    are also possible.”

  61. John M says:

    Are Mark and Marejen (Mary Jane?) partaking of too many tropical botanicals?

  62. Shevva says:

    I’m sorry but the title is where you should start and stop – Top ten climate events of 2010 – we are now measuring climate events in days now?

    Smells of desparation to me.

  63. Smokey says:

    Tim Folkerts,

    You do know that NOAA “adjusts” the temperature record, right? And their adjustments always show hotter temps. Just like GISS.

    You can’t trust them.

  64. EternalOptimist says:

    Mark and Merejen Borders
    I admire the way that you cast the scientific discipline of doubt aside and ‘blow past’ your boundaries. You say what you feel, not what you can prove. well done

  65. Jimbo says:

    Here is another.

    BBC – 25 November 2010
    “The earliest widespread snowfall for 17 years has gripped many parts of the UK.”

  66. John M says:

    Neil Jones says:
    December 17, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Mid-Atlantic? As in half way between the USA and Europe?

    I hope not, I live there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_states

  67. Bryan A says:

    Flooding in Nashville according to :
    http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=DN&Dato=20100512&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=512003&Ref=PH
    There was flooding recorded in the great state of Tennessee in 1927, 1947, 1950, 1955, 1958, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1979, 1984, 1986, and likely other years as the state is part of the Mississippi flood plane. Flooding can occur on a regular basis when you build in areas prone to flooding.

  68. Bryan A says:

    4: Russian Heat Wave
    Coldest winter expected in northern Europe and Russia in 1000 years.
    Note: heat wave temperatures indicated by sattelite over an area of intense regional fires at the time. Could the temps be skewed by the fires?

  69. u.k.(us) says:

    Beware not the usual extremes of weather,
    beware those who covet its power.

  70. Bryan A says:

    5) US summer heat,
    US record cold. 17″ of snow in 18 hours in Minnesota collapses roof of metrodome
    http://www.newser.com/story/107387/vikings-dome-collapses-in-blizzard.html

  71. Barry Day says:
    December 17, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    AS PAUL HOGAN WOULD PUT IT,NO MANN”(flashes out HUGE graph)THIS IS CLIMATE!”

    Right on que,right on time and just what the doctor ordered!!
    Warm periods icecap
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Warm_periods.jpg

    You want to explain this? What is that chart, did anyone else look carefully at it? Look at the numbers on the right side. A little diversion there, what’s up. Don’t ya have any better than that?

    LONGEST THERMOMETER RECORD IN THE WORLD
    http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

    2010 – 1660 = 350 years Is that enough time to make any conclusions about something as diverse as climate, or weather.

    BEST GRAPH AND INFORMATION
    http://www.sustainableoregon.com/temphist.html

    Same as first chart, what is this representing? The numbers on the right the numbers are smaller at the top of the chart larger at the bottom. But the info the the right of the chart says warm to the top, warm should be higher numbers, right? So what are the numbers on the chart?

    Beyond that I noticed that the chart does not follow the bell curve of statics even accounting for the outliers, what’s up with that? Is statistic a lie? Maybe the earth really is flat.

  72. Tim Folkerts says:

    Smokey says: December 17, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    You do know that NOAA “adjusts” the temperature record, right? And their adjustments always show hotter temps. Just like GISS.

    You can’t trust them.

    Yes, I have heard that. But simply because they adjust the values, that does not a priori mean they cannot be trusted. The question is how and why did they adjust the temperatures.

    For example, NOAA says “The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html

    Do you doubt this change occurred? Do you think this change in measurement should NOT be considered? That current morning readings should indeed be compared with earlier afternoon readings?

    And no, I do not have personal knowledge of the details or of the other potential biases that they may have been adjusting for. But if you want to claim the adjustment are in some way suspect, then please provide your specific evidence of how specific adjustments are incorrect so I can learn what those problems are.

  73. EternalOptimist show me anyone who can prove any portion of this entire discussion. There is not anyone on this earth who can explain that. There is only one, the Creator who can prove any of it, El Shaddai, God of Israel. That is the ultimate truth that we can not discuss here so what’s the point? People will believe what their masters tell them to believe. The Fallen will have their way with them, use them up, then let them be destroyed. Their leader will arrive soon, then all these stupid discussions will have been a waste of time. All eyes are closed, all ears are covered. Good luck world, I had higher hopes among the intellectuals, but alas, they are mostly Brain-Dead to. Such a shame, Jesus is reaching out His hands to forgive you and accept you into His Kingdom. Repent, Jesus is coming soon.

  74. George E. Smith says:

    So what was that global Temperature again ? I do mean the Temperature; not interested in any anomalies; just the Temperature. The usual absolute thermodynamic scale of Tempertaue is ok by me; but I can actually convert Temperatures in degrees Celsius; or even in Degrees Fahrenheit; but I don’t know how to convert anomalies; whatever they are; into Temperatures on any recognizable scale.

    So the Temperature please (including error bounds.

  75. Ian L. McQueen says:

    GULF STREAM
    I have read more than once that the Gulf Stream is NOT the reason for the relatively mild climate of the UK and western Europe. Rather, the mildth is due to the temperate temperature of the air reaching those regions, and it is known as a maritime climate.
    If what I have read is wrong I want to hear about it.

    IanM

  76. harry says:

    Tim Folkerts wrote:
    “For example, NOAA says “The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html

    Do you doubt this change occurred? Do you think this change in measurement should NOT be considered? That current morning readings should indeed be compared with earlier afternoon readings? ”

    What this indicates is that the data they collect is next to useless for measuring decadal climate shifts.
    What is the point of collecting temperature data at 9am? If you know the temperature at 9am, can you determine the maximum for the day? You can’t adjust for this, the data is meaningless.

    They don’t even have historical 9am measures to do the adjustments for that station, they are using the data they had from other stations to adjust the stations that have moved to 9am temperature collections. This is madness. What if local conditions normally have an afternoon windshift? Or a storm. How the hell do you determine that from a 9am temperature reading?

    The reason they moved to 9am readings is for hydrological studies, so they seem to not take temperature readings as important.

  77. David L says:

    So crippling snowstorms are proof of global warming? Then it’s true. The state of science education in US schools is abysmal.

  78. John F. Hultquist says:

    Regarding Lake Mead.
    At the moment it seems to be raining in the area!
    http://www.instacam.com/showcam.asp?id=LAKMD&size=L

    Links to long term data and charts.
    chart
    http://www.arachnoid.com/NaturalResources/

    Data
    http://www.arachnoid.com/NaturalResources/

  79. Ric Werme says:

    Tim Folkerts says:
    December 17, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    For example, NOAA says “The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html

    Do you doubt this change occurred? Do you think this change in measurement should NOT be considered? That current morning readings should indeed be compared with earlier afternoon readings?

    The “reading” (NCDC says “observing”) events are to record the high and low temperatures. On a hot day the afternoon readings might result in that day’s temperature being used as the high recorded that day and the following. There’s a similar problem with low temperatures with morning readings. Vose et al at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/2003rv20grl.pdf say there cat be a 2.0°C bias in a month.

    There’s also an issue involving the overall temperature change with the seasons, e.g. in spring as the days warm quickly, shifting the observation time from PM to AM mixes in a half day’s bias.

    Back around 1970 I keypunched data from an obsolete thermograph my father brought home from work, quickly discovered the importance of software to do consistency checks on the data, and wound up with a temperatures for every three hours. While there were obvious differences in the average temperatures computed from the 3 hour data and average of high/low data, things averaged out better than I expected.

    These days, I have years of temperature (and pressure, RH, wind, etc) with 10 minute resolution. What does the NCDC have? High and low temperatures. (USCRN data has hourly data.)

    You ask “That current morning readings should indeed be compared with earlier afternoon readings?”

    My answer – “They both suck.” So yeah, they compare quite well, it’s all a matter of how you look at it.

  80. Jimash says:

    Tim
    “For example, NOAA says “The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.”
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html

    Why switch from the afternoon to the morning anyway ?
    Why switch to the morning and then add FAKE numbers to approximate the afternoon temperature ?
    How can those possibly be accurate or represent reality ?
    Seems utterly moronic to me.

  81. Ric Werme says:

    harry says:
    December 17, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    What is the point of collecting temperature data at 9am? If you know the temperature at 9am, can you determine the maximum for the day? You can’t adjust for this, the data is meaningless.

    Perhaps some people here aren’t familiar with max/min thermometers. These have iron rods in the measuring tubes that get pushed by mercury but don’t get pulled back. An “observation” record entails recording the max and min, then using a magnet to reset the iron rods for the next 24 hours.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_minimum_thermometer describes a type that I have, the “professional” variants are individual thermometers, one for max, one for min. and mounted at an angle. I think rotating them vertical would reset them.

    At 0900 you can tell what the highest and lowest temperatures were since the last time the thermometer was reset.

  82. Jake DB says:

    None of their 2010 climate events compare well to the past severe weather events that took place prior to AGW fears.

    See top severe weather events in past here at this page:

    http://www.c3headlines.com/severe-weather-chartsgraphs.html

  83. Tim Folkerts says:

    Jimash says: December 17, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    “Why switch from the afternoon to the morning anyway ?”
    I don’t know. But Ric Werme gave some good info a few posts back.

    “Why switch to the morning and then add FAKE numbers to approximate the afternoon temperature ?”
    Why do you call these “fake”? Are prices that are adjusted for inflation “fake”? If I know my speedometer reads 5% high, is it “fake” data to say my speed is 57 mph when the speedometer reads 60 mph? When it is known that the readings are not similar, it would seem “fake” if they DIDN’T take into account problems that have been identified.

    “How can those possibly be accurate or represent reality?”
    That seems a perfectly reasonable question. One worth looking into and understanding. But that will take considerable effort. The reference that Ric gave earlier states “In short, the time of observation bias adjustments in HCN appear to be robust.” So this paper suggests that the temperature corrections are reasonable. I would suggest if you are truly interested, you read the paper (and perhaps the papers that they cite and papers that cite this paper) and then tell us specifically what is utterly moronic about their methods and conclusions.

  84. Jimash says:

    “At 0900 you can tell what the highest and lowest temperatures were since the last time the thermometer was reset. ”

    Well… that sounds great Ric, but it isn’t what they say they are doing.
    ” This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.””
    Just how many corrections and fudges and extrapolations can you do to what is ultimately a pretty simple measurement before it becomes corrupt ?
    How can all these far flung temperatures be corrected and adjusted by multiple degrees and then claim an accuracy representing the real world to within tenths and hundredths of a degree ?
    This does not stand to reason.

  85. Jimash says:

    Tim
    ““In short, the time of observation bias adjustments in HCN appear to be robust.””

    Compared to what ? The afternoon readings that they didn’t take ?
    This is not a speedometer, every day and every place are different, while the speedo
    is consistent in its offset.
    The adjustment itself imparts a bias, that cannot be correct or representative however robust it may seem.

    Robust is an oft used “fudge” word, that means it looks good on paper.
    I mean we are talking a about a well established instrument.
    A reading ( observation) of a simple, usually 3 digit number with a darn decimal point.
    IF this is “the most important thing in the world”, uh.. don’t you want the real numbers ?
    I would much rather see a graph with the real numbers and a note that says ” here at this point we switched to the morning, so it looks lower “.
    The whole routine seems to be statistical overkill.

  86. Jeff Alberts says:

    “A possible teleconnective link between Indian monsoon flood and Canadian Prairie drought has been speculated by Khandekar (2004).”

    “Teleconnective link”? Really? Sounds like Edgar Cayce. Where can I read about the physical properties of “teleconnection”?

  87. Werner Brozek says:

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

    “The difference between climate and weather is usefully summarized by the popular phrase “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.”” and “The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).”

    Now if climate is what I expect, then why is a period of 30 years chosen? The reason I ask is that the PDO has a cycle of about 60 years and the sunspot cycle is about 11 years. If I wanted to go to Los Angeles next March 1, the average temperature over the last 30 years for March 1 would not be as useful as other things. For example, IF I assumed the PDO was the most important thing in determining the temperature next March 1, and assuming a cycle of exactly 60 years, I would would want to know what happened between 58 and 62 years ago. As well, I may want to know the La Nina, El Nino and sunspot situation at that time. Then if I believed the sunspots were also a factor, I may add or subtract a degree or two. If I assumed El Ninos and La Ninas were also a factor, I would add or subtract a few more degrees, depending on the situation.

    So in relation to this article, if “Climate is what you expect”, which of these ten things were specifically expected before they occurred? Would the MET office be prepared to make ten specific predictions for 2011 that we can check next December?

  88. It's always Marcia, Marcia says:

    Mark and Merejen Borders says:
    December 17, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Oh and, what will happen to the weather and climate if the Gulf Stream is stopped and no warm water enters the Atlantic Current?

    That current is caused by the rotation of the earth. Why would you think it will stop?

    Global warming ‘science’ makes unfeasible claims.

    Did you read things on some alarming blog somewhere and then post what you read here in your numerous comments?

  89. nooneinparticular says:

    Wow…cool comments (sorry, no pun intended)
    After reading some of these, I’m feel comfortable with my views, and they haven’t changed.

    Then again, I visit this site often.

  90. Jerry Morris says:

    # 10

    I suppose the period between 800AD and 1300AD aren’t included in their time period of “ever”, when global average temps were about 5 degrees warming than they are now. This would be the period in which the Vikings dicovered Greenland and flourished there, up until the arrival of the “Little Ice Age” at about 1300AD, that drove them out.

    Oh BTW, all this association between heat waves and droughts doesn’t wash. Antarcticas’ average annual percipitaion is around 3 inches (approx. 1 inch of rain = 1 ft of snow). It’s never warm enough in Antarctica for it to rain.

  91. gcb says:

    If you want to cherry-pick “record temperatures in someplace-or-other”, you can have record highs (and lows) pretty much every year as far back as we have been keeping records. So Lake Mead was at an all-time low – what about the other hundred million or so lakes in the world, how are they doing? So Russia had record highs this summer – Britain is poised to set record lows for the month of December. It’s all cherry-picking.

    You cannot pick any one new record and say “this is because of global warming”; you need to accept that there are a zillion other instances that weren’t records and therefore weren’t noticed. This top ten list is useful for impressing those who are easily distracted by bits of string and shiny baubles, but not much more than that.

  92. John F. Hultquist says:

    Jeff Alberts says: teleconnection?

    Try searching, please. — weather teleconnections –
    94,000 hits; the fourth is:
    http://library.thinkquest.org/20901/teleconnections.htm

    A simple concept: Consider a large tub of water, calm, smooth. Take a 3 liter pail and carefully lift that much water from one end. The 3 liter hole is immediately filled, the water adjusts and become smooth again.

    Now, think of a low pressure system. What does it do? From how far away might air be flowing (X km.) toward the center of the low? (Discount Earth’s rotation.) What happens when the low dissipates? Does the air that was X km. away and moving toward the low stop or continue toward the place where the low was?

    Hope that helps.

  93. Smokey says:

    Tim Folkerts says:

    “Smokey says: December 17, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    You do know that NOAA “adjusts” the temperature record, right? And their adjustments always show hotter temps. Just like GISS.

    You can’t trust them.”

    Yes, I have heard that. But simply because they adjust the values, that does not a priori mean they cannot be trusted. The question is how and why did they adjust the temperatures.

    Good questions, Tim. You continue:

    “And no, I do not have personal knowledge of the details or of the other potential biases that they may have been adjusting for. But if you want to claim the adjustment are in some way suspect, then please provide your specific evidence of how specific adjustments are incorrect so I can learn what those problems are.”

    OK, I’m glad to help out:

    Here’s the daily sea ice concentration: click. [Courtesy of the esteemed and peer-reviewed Willis Eschenbach]. You will notice that the temperature bias claiming global warming is non-existent.

    Next, NOAA itself shows declining temperatures: click

    And GISS & NOAA show sharp temperature rises, while others do not: click

    Although GISS, like NOAA, sometimes shows steeply rising temperatures – after they “adjust” the temperature record. What are the odds of always showing rising temperatures, eh?

    And GISS shows lousy correllation with CO2: click

    More bogus GISS adjustments: click

    Like NOAA, GISS “adjusts” the temperature record to always show increased warming. You asked for evidence. There it is.

    GISS and NOAA are lying for continued grant money. Can there be any doubt?

  94. Jeff Alberts says:

    John F. Hultquist says:
    December 17, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    The way it’s being described in the paragraph I quoted makes it seem like a DROUGHT in one hemisphere is causing a FLOOD in another. Perhaps opposing pressure systems may correlate somehow, but the word “teleconnect” just sounds like so much mumbo jumbo.

  95. Annabelle says:

    Why no mention of the very cold winter in parts of South America this year?

  96. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Folks play fast & loose with all sorts of definitions! I constantly see “ocean acidification” lumped under the “climate” rubric, when it should properly be considered under atmospheric chemistry, unrelated to anything to do with climate.

    Other atmospheric chemistry issues include acid deposition (acid rain) from sulfur dioxide emissions.

    Repeat after me, “carbon dioxide is the root of all evil.”

  97. Baa Humbug says:

    Mark and Merejen Borders says:
    December 17, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Well Baa, your one link was broke, the other about the different statistics was quite interesting. Did you observe a lot of missing information? And did you observe that there was a slight correlation between the winds and waves. Tornadoes and Hurricanes in the US. Many of those on the sheet I remember. I also remember quite a few that should be on the list but are not. I remember one that had the second lowest millibar reading in recorded History, where is that on the list?

    I checked the 3 links I provided and they are not broken. Try again.
    Why are you asking me about events you think should appear in NOAAs list? THEY ARE NOAAs LIST. Did you miss my line about “Trivial Pursuit”?

  98. harry says:

    Ric Werne wrote: “Perhaps some people here aren’t familiar with max/min thermometers. These have iron rods in the measuring tubes that get pushed by mercury but don’t get pulled back. An “observation” record entails recording the max and min, then using a magnet to reset the iron rods for the next 24 hours.”

    Some minor problems with your suggestion.
    1) There is no mention of min/max thermometers in the NOAA description of their operations
    2) Given a set-up that records min/max temps, why would a change from dusk to 9am impose a cooling bias? Does the max somehow get smaller between the previous day and 9am? Does the min cool off ?

    NOAA purports to have an ability to track decadal temperature movements of less than .2 degrees, it adjusts raw temperatures by 2 degrees based on measurements of other stations and it can’t even impose consistency within its network for the time that data is recorded.

    How any meaning can be attached to what they produce is beyond my understanding.

  99. Bryan A says:

    2. Flooding in Nashville Tenn.
    The Cumberland River reached nearly 12 feet above flood stage and it topped out just under 52 feet before the waters began to finally recede. Hundreds of people were rescued from their homes by boat and canoe.

    Cumberland reaches 56.2 feet Jan 1, 1927
    http://www.lrn.usace.army.mil/history/dates_in_history.htm

  100. Barry Day says:

    Mark and Mrejen Borders says:
    December 17, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    Barry Day says:
    December 17, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    AS PAUL HOGAN WOULD PUT IT,NO MANN”(flashes out HUGE graph)THIS IS CLIMATE!”

    Right on que,right on time and just what the doctor ordered!!
    Warm periods icecap
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Warm_periods.jpg

    Mark and Mrejen Borders says:
    “You want to explain this? What is that chart, did anyone else look carefully at it? Look at the numbers on the right side. A little diversion there, what’s up. Don’t ya have any better than that?”

    Barry Day says:
    It’s just the famous Greenland ice core record,that’s all and is clearly labeled underneath along with the published paper information there as well.
    I don’t know about you but I learned about +’s and -’s before I started school and was able to read in third grade.
    ————–
    LONGEST THERMOMETER RECORD IN THE WORLD
    http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

    Mark and Mrejen Borders says:
    “2010 – 1660 = 350 years Is that enough time to make any conclusions about something as diverse as climate, or weather.”

    Barry Day says:Why don’t you tell that to the one tree hockey schtick team and those who start at the low cold 70′s and the famous quote”before industrialisation”
    —————
    BEST GRAPH AND INFORMATION
    http://www.sustainableoregon.com/temphist.html

    Same as first chart, what is this representing? The numbers on the right the numbers are smaller at the top of the chart larger at the bottom. But the info the the right of the chart says warm to the top, warm should be higher numbers, right? So what are the numbers on the chart?

    Beyond that I noticed that the chart does not follow the bell curve of statics even accounting for the outliers, what’s up with that? Is statistic a lie? Maybe the earth really is flat.

    Barry Day says:
    Sheesh!! Maybe some can’t read or need glasses, me thinks.

  101. nooneinparticular says:

    We need to adjust some data?

    I think it is time for someone to investigate and audit. This definately needs some fact-finding – then fire someone.

    Does anyone believe that the U.S. has only checked it’s temperature at 9:00 am since 1980′s?

    Where is the hourly data?

    I think we may have a crazy driver at the wheel of NOAA that needs to be locked up before he runs the rest of the U.S. off the road.

  102. Brian H says:

    Jeff, you need more Classical education. The root, tele, just means “distant”. So he’s saying there’s a long-range relationship between the two types of events. Could be caused by many things, but there are many, many such connections across the globe.

    So it doesn’t mean the Indian Monsoon is phoning up the Canadian Prairies and making mutual plans. It’s just that both are part of a larger pattern.

  103. Pamela Gray says:

    Maybe an example can clear up the confusion.

    Here are the colors of weather for Oregon. While it looks and feels damn cold, all is normal, though records are being set everywhere. If it were Summer and we had a heat wave, that would be normal weather too.

    http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/

    Here is the description of Oregon climate:

    http://www.city-data.com/states/Oregon-Climate.html

    There has been no climate change in Oregon whatsoever. Its climate description is as valid today as it was a century ago.

    We are going through a period of weather pattern variation change within that climate. And that pattern is currently towards the cold side. This could be short term or long term. But it is well within the climate range of Oregon. If next we suffer a warming trend, again, it would be well within the climate range of Oregon.

  104. Frank K. says:

    Smokey:

    “GISS and NOAA are lying for continued grant money. Can there be any doubt?”

    It’s not just GISS and NOAA. All entities (academic groups, government agencies) receiving government money for climate research (the “Climate Ca$h”) must justify their budgets every year and, in the case of non-government groups, apply for new research funding through NSF, DOE etc. High profile press releases (no matter how hysterical and ridiculous) and reports go a long way towards ensuring this continued funding. It’s the climate industry’s definition of “sustainability”…

  105. Tim Folkerts says:

    Smokey says: December 17, 2010 at 9:06 pm
    OK, I’m glad to help out:

    Here’s the daily sea ice concentration: click. [Courtesy of the esteemed and peer-reviewed Willis Eschenbach]. You will notice that the temperature bias claiming global warming is non-existent.
    Sorry, I don’t see anything about temperature on that graph. And certainly nothing about the corrections that were made.

    Next, NOAA itself shows declining temperatures: click
    I get a VERY different graph when I visit NOAA.
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/contiguous-us-temp.gif
    Info about the graph is here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/climfaq14.html
    It is interesting that the two graphs show very little correlation. Where did your graph come from and what data is it based on?

    And GISS & NOAA show sharp temperature rises, while others do not: click
    I can’t find any info about what temperature is being plotted over what area(s). The graph doesn’t seem to be linked to any other descriptions. What is being plotted?

    Although GISS, like NOAA, sometimes shows steeply rising temperatures – after they “adjust” the temperature record. What are the odds of always showing rising temperatures, eh?
    An interesting opinion, but again I see no data. What adjustments are you talking about, and why where they made? Until we have 5 adjustments in a row that all go the same way, we are still below the 95% confidence level that the string is not simply random. How many adjustments have been made? how many actually raise the recent values relative to the earlier measurements?

    And GISS shows lousy correllation with CO2: click
    How does this relate to adjustments to the temperature records?

    More bogus GISS adjustments: click
    A list of the changes in the analysis between when the two graphs were made is here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/
    Which of these changes do you think are bogus? Or do you simply not like the results and assume that there must be something fishy?

    Like NOAA, GISS “adjusts” the temperature record to always show increased warming. You asked for evidence. There it is.
    I see lots of opinion — some of which might well contain valid critiques of the data. It is certainly intriguing that the increases are always positive (at least according to your claims), but I see no evidence in anything you gave.

    GISS and NOAA are lying for continued grant money. Can there be any doubt?
    Given the size of the organizations, I don’t doubt there are some lies going around. Given that the top administrators are political appointees, I’m sure there is considerable politicking occurring. But I no reason to believe it is is particularly worse than other areas of government, business, or academic research.

    Yes, it is suspicious on the surface. It certainly is worth more investigation. It is worth having blogs dedicated to “holding feet to the fire”. When you have more specific evidence, I will think more about your accusations.

  106. ES says:

    Not exactly on topic but there is a high pressure over Greenland today, on a surface map, that reads 1070. The Summit station is not reporting pressure. While not a record yet, there may be some records broken before the winter is out. The strong La Nina of 1989 set records in North America for high pressure.

    The May-July period over the Canadian Prairies in 2010 was the wettest in 60 years and possibly 100 years
    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/summer_2010_wettest_on_the_canadian_prairies_in_60_years1/

  107. nooneinparticular says:

    The Met office recently announced it was going to be adjusting some data as well.

    I want to see unadjusted data, with possibly the adjusted superimposed, and a rationalle for the changes. Wouldn’t that be a nice graph to have a discussion over?

  108. Andy says:

    Mark and Merejen Borders says:
    December 17, 2010 at 11:15 am
    “Oh and, what will happen to the weather and climate if the Gulf Stream is stopped and no warm water enters the Atlantic Current?”

    I must admit, I have no idea what would happen if the Gulf Stream stopped. However, it hasn’t, so why worry?
    If I follow your line of thought: could you tell me what will happen if little green men from Mars land?

  109. David A. Evans says:

    My observation is simple, (as perhaps I am.)
    My local climate appears to be doing nothing unusual.
    It cooled for a bit, warmed for a bit and now appears to be returning to the weather patterns of my youth.
    Other places on Earth may have had a slightly different pattern, however, have other people over 55 noticed a tendency to a return to the weather of their youth?

    DaveE.

  110. nooneinparticular says:

    I agree with David E. I’m 50Years old. Weather, sort of changes one way for a while, then the other, then seems to return. (Did I say something stupid like that)

    Always was something unusual – my biggest fear is not CO2, it’s an asteroid followed by a hemaroid.

    That is not to say we should not be taking care of our environment. We need to look at ways to reduce CO2. I just resent the panic, and hysteria, and the BS.

  111. Jimash says:

    Everything is looking Italic to me.

    [Reply: Tim Folkert reversed the slash and the i in the HTML closing tag. Occasionally that happens. Fixed now.]

  112. Smokey says:

    Tim Folkerts says:

    “Yes, it is suspicious on the surface. It certainly is worth more investigation. It is worth having blogs dedicated to “holding feet to the fire”. When you have more specific evidence, I will think more about your accusations.”

    Supicious on the surface??

    Tim, me boy, you are a true believer. I could never break through that wall of cognitive dissonance with enough “specific evidence” to ever convince you that the climate science system is rigged to the hilt.

    Those endless adjustments to the raw temperature record are no different than if your bank made thousands of “adjustments” to your account over the years — and every one of them turned out to be in the bank’s favor.

    Sure, it’s possible that your bank could make thousands of errors that all ended up taking your money. But c’mon, you can’t be that clueless about human nature. These government climate scientists are trying to protect their multi-billion dollar annual gravy train from being derailed, and one way they do it is to show the scariest possible charts and maps.

    And since when is it smart to take anything the government says at face value? Are you that credulous?? Skepticism is based on not taking things at face value.

    Where are the scientific skeptics in the government, or in the UN/IPCC? Every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost. But almost every scientist in the U.S. government and in the UN lacks skepticism. And there are zero scientific skeptics in key positions. Ergo: there are no honest scientists in key positions.

    Here is a government-produced USHCN map, with the original draft copy, and the final alarming red map released to the public — both using the same temperatures.

    And here is a Hadley map, draft copy gif-transformed to the final version — both use the same temperatures [source].

    They do the same thing with their temperature adjustments. Their motives: job security, pay raises, parties in Cancun, Bali, etc., and over $7 billion every year to spread around. And despite all that money being spent, there is still no empirical, testable evidence showing the amount of warming attributable to human activity. None.

    The most rational conclusion is that the addition to a harmless, beneficial and tiny trace gas makes no measurable difference in temperature. Whatever difference there might be is too small to be meaningful. The “carbon” scare is all about the money. If you don’t see that, it’s because you don’t want to see it.

  113. Peter Czerna says:

    The ‘climate events’ piece is just applying the principles set out in a recent posting on climatecentral by David Ropeik (2010-12-13):

    The Importance of Risk Perception…

    = ‘How to deal with indifferents and deniers’. The main techniques:

    MAKE IT LOCAL, AND PERSONAL. We don’t live globally. We live on streets in neighborhoods and communities. We don’t check out tomorrow’s “climate report.” We care about the weather. Make climate change, and adaptation, local.

    MAKE IT CONCRETE, NOT ABSTRACT. Focus on specifics, not generalities. Not sea level rise in general, depicted on a map from outer space, but where various predictions would put the ocean on local streets. Not increased risk of severe weather in general, but what that could mean to the local floodplain. Not less snow, but what less melting snowpack could mean to local water supplies and rates. Talk about the details and potential realities, not the big picture concepts.

    MAKE IT NOW, NOT LATER. There are more and more sources describing regional impacts of climate change. People are more likely to support adaptation to what is already occurring, or may happen soon, than what lies years down the road.

    … etc.

    If you go to the post and read the text, try an experiment: read the post as though it were written by a ‘denier’ trying to persuade CAGW believers of the true faith. Substitute ‘CAGW believer’ for ‘denier’. It works surprisingly well. The fact that Ropeik doesn’t realize that the self-evident ‘truth’ of everything he says is just a matter of his standpoint shows what a low-level windbag he is. (Hope that abuse doesn’t get me snipped!)

  114. Alexander K says:

    From the the sample of questions posed by the Borders (above), I am beginning to wonder what they are bordering on.

Comments are closed.